Studies on the legend of the Holy Grail

Home Site Menu Religion Menu Interesting Menu Humour Menu Guestbook Forum Email

Studies on the legend of the Holy Grail

With Especial Reference To The Hypothesis Of Its Celtic Origin

By Alfred Nutt 1888

Description of the leading forms of the Romance

Conte del Graal Joseph d'Arimathie Didot-Perceval Queste del Saint Graal Grand Saint Graal Parzival Perceval le Gallois Mabinogi of Peredur Sir Perceval Diu Crone Information respecting date and authorship of these works in the MSS

CHAPTER II.

Summaries Conte du Graal

CHAPTER III.

The legend formed of two portions

Quest Two forms of each portion distinguished - Grouping of the various versions - Alternative hypotheses of development + | + Their bearing upon the alleged Celtic origin of the Grail + | + The first use made of it and its first possessor; its solace of Joseph; its properties and the effect produced by it; its name; its arrival in England + | + the Grail keeper and his relationship to the Promised Knight + | + Three different stages in the development of the Queste - The work and the qualification of the Promised Knight + | + Conclusions: Priority over Early History of Quest Chronological arrangement of the versions

CHAPTER IV.

Sketch Of The Literature Connected With The Grail Cycle

Villemarque + | + Halliwell - San Marte (A. Schulz) + | + Simrock Rochat + | + Furnivall's reprint of the Grand St. Graal and of Borron - J. F. Campbell + | + Furnivall's Queste - Paulin Paris - Potvin's Conte du Graal + | + Bergmann Skeat's Joseph of Arimathea - Hucher: Grail Celtic, date of Borron + | + Zarncke, Zur Geschichte der Gralsage; Grail belongs to Christian legend + | + Birch-Hirschfeld develops Zarncke's views: Grand St. Graal younger than Queste, both presuppose Chrestien and an earlier Queste, the Didot-Perceval, which forms integral part of Borron's trilogy; Mabinogi later than Chrestien; various members of the cycle dated + | + Martin combats Birch-Hirschfeld: Borron later than Chrestien, whose poem represents oldest stage of the romance, which has its roots in Celtic tradition + | + Hertz - Criticism of Birch-Hirschfeld

CHAPTER V.

Relationship of the Didot-Perceval to the Conte du Graal

Instances in which the Mabinogi has copied Chrestien + | + Relationship of the Conte du Graal and the Mabinoyi. Examples of its independence The incident of the blood drops in the snow + | + Differences between the two works. The machinery of the Mabinogi and the traces of it in the Conte du Graal + | + The Mabinogi Form Of The Quest + | + The stag-hunt - The Mabinogi and Manessier Nature Of Chrestien's Model - The sources of the Conte du Graal and the relation of the various parts to a common original + | + Sir Perceval Steinbach's theory Objections to it - The counsels in the Conte du Graal + | + Wolfram and the Mabinogi Absence of the Grail from the apparently oldest Celtic form

CHAPTER VI.

The Lay of the Great Fool

The Aryan Expulsion and Keturn Formula - Comparison with the Mabinogi, Sir Perceval, and the Conte du Graal + | + Originality of the Highland, tale - Comparison with the Fionn legend - Summary of the Lay of the Great Fool + | + Comparison with the stag hunt incident in the Conte du Graal and the Mabinogi + | + The folk-tale of the twin brethren + | + The fight against the witch who brings the dead to life in Gerbert and the similar incident in the folk-tale of the Knight of the Red Shield + | + Comparison with the original form of the Mabinogi - Orginality of Gerbert

CHAPTER VII.

The various forms of the visit to the Grail Castle in the romances

Conte du Graal: Chrestien; Gautier-Manessier; Gautier-Gerbert + | + Didot-Perceval Mabinogi Conte du Graal: Gawaiii's visit to the Grail Castle + | + Heinrich von dem Turlin Conte du Graal: Perceval's visit to the Castle of Maidens Inconsistency of these varying accounts; their testimony to stories of different nature and origin being embodied in the romances + | + Two main types: feud quest and unspelling quest Reasons for the confusion of the two types - Evidence of the confusion in older Celtic literature - The Grail in Celtic literature: the gear of the Tuatha de Danann; the cauldron in the Ultonian cycle; the Mabinogi of Branwen; vessel of balsam and glaive of light in the contemporary folk-tale + | + The sword in Celtic literature: Tethra; Fionii; Maims Parallels to the Bespelled Castle; the Brug of Oengus, the Brug of Lug, the Brug of Manannan Mac Lir, Bran's visit to the Island of Women, Cormac Mac Art, and the Fairy Branch; Diarmaid and the Daughter of King Under the Waves + | + Unspelling stories: The Three Soldiers; the waiting of Arthur; Arthur in Etna; the Kyffhauser Legend, objections to Martin's views concerning it Gawain's visit to the Magic Castle and Celtic parallels; The Son of Bad Counsel; Fionn in Giant Land; Fionu in the House of Guana; Fionn and the Yellow Face + | + The Vanishing of the Bespelled Castle Comparison with the Sleeping Beauty cycle The "Haunted Castle" form and its influence on Heinrich's version The Loathly Grail

CHAPTER VIII.

The Fisher King in the Conte du Graal,
in the Queste, and in Borron and the Grand St. Graal

The Fisher King in the Conte du Graal, in the Queste, and in Borron and the Grand St Graal - The accounts of latter complete each other +|+ The Fish is the Salmon of Wisdom - Parallel with the Fionn Saga +|+ The nature of the Unspelling Quest - The Mabinogi of Taliesin and its mythological affinities - Brons, Bran, Cernunnos - Perceval's silence: Conte du Graal explanation late; explanation from the Fionn Saga +|+ Comparison of incident with geasa; nature of latter; references to it in Celtic folk-tales and in old Irish literature, Book of Rights, Diarmaid, Cuchulainn - Geasa and taboo

CHAPTER IX,

Summing up of the elements of the older portion of the cycle

Parallelism with Celtic tradition - The Christian element in the cycle: the two forms of the Early History; Brons form older Brons and Bran +|+ The Bran conversion legend - The Joseph conversion legend: Joseph in apocryphal literature Glastonbury The head in the platter and the Veronica portrait +|+ The Bran legend the starting point of the Christian transformation of the legend - Substitution of Joseph for Bran Objections to this hypothesis +|+ Hypothetical sketch of the growth of the legend

CHAPTER X.

The Moral and Spiritual import of the Grail-Legend universally recognised

Reasons for that Popularity - Affinities of the Mediaeval Romances with early Celtic Literature - Importance of the Individual Hero; Knighthood; the role of Woman; the Celtic Fairy and the Mediaeval Lady - the Supernatural M. Renan's views +|+ The Quest in English Literature, Malory The earliest form of the Legend, Chrestien, his continuators +|+ The Queste and its Ideal The Sex-Relations in the Middle Ages Criticism of Mr. Furnival's estimate of the moral import of the Queste The Merits of the Queste - The Chastity Ideal in the later versions - Modern English Treatments: Tennyson, Hawker - Possible Source of the Chastity Ideal in Popular Tradition +|+ The Perceval Quest in "Wolfram; his Moral Conception; the Question; Parzival and Conduiramur +|+ The Parzival Quest and Faust - Wagner's Parsifal - The Christian element in the Legend - Ethical Ideas in the folk-tale originals of the Grail Romances: the Great Fool, the Sleeping Beauty +|+ Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

"The Celtic hero who in the twelfth century became Perceval le Chercheur du basin . . . in the end became possessed of that sacred basin le Saint Graal, and the holy lance which, though Christian in the story, are the same as the talismans which appear so often in Gaelic tales . . . the glittering weapon which destroys, and the sacred medicinal cup which cures." J. F. CAMPBELL.

"In all the Fenian stories mention is made of Fionn's healing cup . . . it is the same as the Holy Grail of course," J. F. CAMPBELL.

THE present work is, as its title states, a collection of "Studies." It does not profess to give an exhaustive or orderly account of the Grail romance cycle; it deals with particular aspects of the legend, and makes no pretence of exhausting even these.

It may be urged that as this is the case the basis of the work is too broad for the superstructure, and that there was no need to give full summaries of the leading forms of the legend, or to discuss at such length their relation one to another, when it was only intended to follow up one of the many problems which this romance cycle presents. Had there existed any work in English which did in any measure what the writer has here attempted to do, he would only too gladly have given more space and more time to the elaboration of the special subject of these studies. But the only work of the kind is in German, Birch-Hirschfeld's Die Gralsage. Many interested in the Arthurian romances do not know German; and some who profess an interest in them, and who do know German, are not, to judge by their writings, acquainted with Birch-Hirschfeld's work. It seemed worth while, therefore, to present the facts about the cycle with greater fulness than would have been necessary had those facts been generally accessible. The writer felt, too, that whatever judgment might be passed upon his own speculations, his statements of fact might give his book some value in the eyes of students. He also wished to give all who felt an interest in the line of investigation he opened up the opportunity of pursuing it further, or the means of checking his assertions and conjectures.

The writer has taken his texts as he found them. He has studied the subject matter of the romances, not the words in which they have been handed down. Those who seek for philological disquisitions are, therefore, warned that they will find nothing to interest them; and those scholars who are well acquainted with the printed texts, but who are on the search for fresh MS. evidence, must not look here for such. On the other hand, as the printed texts are for the most of such rarity and price as to be practically inaccessible to anyone not within reach of a large library, the writer trusts that his abstract of them will be welcome to many. He has striven to take note of all works of real value bearing upon the subject. He endeavoured, though unsuccessfully, to obtain a copy of M. Graston Paris' account of the Arthurian romances which, though it has been for some months in print, is not yet published.

The writer has done his best to separate the certain from the conjectural. Like M. Renan, in a similar case, he begs the reader to supply the "perhaps " and the "possibly's" that may sometimes have dropt out. The whole subject is fraught with difficulty, and there are special reasons why all results must for some time to come be looked upon as conjectural. These are glanced at here and there in the course of these studies, but it may be well to put them together in this place. Firstly, whatever opinions be held as to which are the older forms of the legend, it is certain that in no one case do we possess a primary form. All the versions that have come down to us presuppose, even where they do not actually testify to, a model. Two of the forms which there is substantial agreement in reckoning among the oldest, the poems of Chrestien de Troyes and Robert de Borron, were never finished by the authors; sequels exist to both, of a later date and obviously affected by other forms of the legend. A reconstruction of the original story is under these circumstances a task of great uncertainty. So much for the difficulty inherent in the nature of the evidence, a difficulty which it is to be feared will always beset the student of this literature, as no new texts are likely to be found. Secondly, this evidence, such as it is, is not accessible in a form of which the most can be made. The most important member of the group, the Conte du Graal, only exists in one text, and that from a late and poor MS. It is certain that a critical edition, based upon a survey of the entire MS. evidence, will throw great light upon all the questions here treated of. The Mabinogi of Peredur has not yet been critically edited, nor have the MSS. of the other romances yielded up all that can be learnt from them. Thirdly, whatever opinion be held respecting the connection of the North French romances and Celtic tradition, connection of some kind must be admitted. Now the study of Celtic tradition is only beginning to be placed upon a firm basis, and the stores of Celtic myth and legend are only beginning to be thrown open to the non-Celtic scholar. Were there in existence a Celtic parallel to Grimm's great work on German Mythology, the views for which the writer contends would have been, in all likelihood, admitted ere now, and there would have been no necessity for this work at all.

Whilst some of the reasons which render the study of the Grail legends so fascinating, because so problematic, will probably always remain in force, others will vanish before the increase of knowledge. When the diplomatic evidence is accessible in a trustworthy form; when the romances have received all the light that can be shed upon them from Celtic history, philology, and mythology, the future student will have a comparatively easy task. One of the writer's chief objects has been to excite an interest in these romances among those who are able to examine the Celtic elements in them far more efficiently than he could do. Welsh philologists can do much to explain the Onomasticon Arthurianum; Cymric history generally may elucidate the subject matter. But as a whole Welsh literature is late, meagre, and has kept little that is archaic. The study of Irish promises far better results. Of all the races of modern Europe the Irish have the most considerable and the most archaic mass of pre-Christian traditions. By the side of their heroic traditional literature that of Cymry or Teuton (High and Low), or Slav is recent, scanty, and unoriginal.

A few words must be said in defence of the free use made of conjecture in the course of these studies. This is well nigh unavoidable from the way in which the texts we have to deal with have come down to us. What M. Renan has said about the Hebrew historical scriptures is excellently exemplified in the Grail romances. There was no fixed text, no definite or rounded sequence of incidents, of which scribes respected the integrity. On the contrary, each successive transcriber was only anxious to add some fresh adventure to the interminable tale, and those MSS. were most thought of which contained the greatest number of lines. The earlier MSS. have, therefore, almost entirely disappeared, and we are dealing with works which we know to have been composed in the twelfth century, but of which we have only thirteenth or fourteenth century transcripts. Inconsistencies in the conduct of the story are the inevitable consequence in most cases, but sometimes the latest arranger had an eye for unity of effect, and attained this by the simple process of altering the old account so as to make it fit with the new. In dealing with the text of an individual author, whether ancient or modern, it would be in the last degree uncritical to explain difficulties by such hypotheses as the loss of an earlier draft, or the foisting into the work of later and incongruous incidents and conceptions. Not so in the case of the romances; this method of explanation is natural and legitimate, but none the less is it largely conjectural.

The writer may be blamed for not having presented his subject in a more engaging and more lucid form. He would plead in excuse the circumstances under which his work has been carried on. When the only hours of study are those which remain after the claims, neither few nor light, of business and other duties have been met, it is hard to give an appearance of unity to a number of minute detail studies, and to weld them together into one harmonious whole. The fact that the work has been written, and printed, at considerable intervals of time may, it is hoped, be accepted as some excuse for inconsistency in the terminology.

The writer has many acknowledgments to make. First and chief to Dr. Birch-Hirschfeld, but for whose labours, covering well nigh the whole field of the Grail cycle, he would not have been able to take in hand his work at all; then to Dr. Furnivall, to whose enthusiasm and spirit the publication of some of the most important texts are due. In these two cases the writer acknowledges his gratitude with the more readiness that he has felt compelled to come to an opposite conclusion from that arrived at by Dr. Birch-Hirschfeld respecting the genesis and growth of the legend, and because he has had to differ from Dr. Furnivall's estimate of the moral value of the Galahad romances. To M. Hucher, to Mons. Ch. Potvin, the editor, single-handed, of the Conte du Graal, to M. d'Arbois de Jubainville, to Professor Ernst Martin, to the veteran San-Marte, to Herr Otto Kiipp, and to Herr Paul Steinbach, these studies owe much. Professor Rhys' Hibbert Lectures came into the writer's hands as he was preparing the latter portion of the book for the press; they were of great service to him, and he was especially gratified to find opinions at which he had arrived confirmed on altogether independent grounds by Professor Rhys' high authority. The writer is also indebted to him, to Mr. H. L. D. Ward, of the British Museum, and to his friend Mr. Egerton Phillimore for help given while the sheets were passing through the press. Lastly, the writer desires to pay an especial tribute of gratitude and respect to that admirable scholar, J. F. Campbell. Of all the masters in folk-lore, Jacob Grimm not excepted, none had a keener eye or surer, more instinctively right judgment.

Although the writer admits, nay, insists upon the conjectural character of his results, he believes he is on the right track, and that if the Grail romances be worked out from any other point of view than the one here taken, the same goal will be reached. It should be said that some of the conclusions, which he can claim as his own by right of first mention, were stated by him in a paper he read before the Folk-Lore Society in 1880 (afterwards reprinted, Celtic Magazine, 1887, August October); and in a paper he read before the Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, in 1884.

These studies have been a delight and a solace to the writer; had it been otherwise, he would still feel himself amply repaid for his work by the thought that he had made a contribution, however slight, to the criticism of the Legend of the Holy Grail.